FIRST FIT CO. LTD. v. LAM YAU AND ANOTHER

FIRST FIT CO. LTD. v. LAM YAU AND ANOTHER

The presiding officer misdirected himself by adopting an adversarial approach and failing to perform the statutory inquisitorial duties required by the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (including actively testing evidence and explaining relevant statutory provisions); that procedural failing was material and justified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FIRST FIT CO. LTD. v. LAM YAU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellant: First Fit Co. Ltd.; 1st Respondent: Lam Yau; 2nd Respondent: Lam Wing-kan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 1990
Case Number
HCLA4/1990
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Remitting Matter for Rehearing
Outcome
Award of wages and costs against the Appellant set aside and matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing de novo by another presiding officer.
Legal Topics
Joint and Several Liability of Subcontractors, Inquisitorial Duty of Tribunal Presiding Officer, Evidence and Testing Witness Credibility, Remittal for Procedural Unfairness, Statutory Notice Under Employment Ordinance
Source Language
en
Employment Law Labour Tribunal Procedure Civil Procedure Joint and Several Liability of Subcontractors Inquisitorial Duty of Tribunal Presiding Officer Evidence and Testing Witness Credibility Remittal for Procedural Unfairness Statutory Notice Under Employment Ordinance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Fit Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Lam Yau

1st Respondent

Lam Wing-kan

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Appeal to High Court; Judgment Remitting Matter for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether superior and principal subcontractors are liable for unpaid wages of a subcontractor's employees under s.43C(1) Employment Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the presiding officer failed to perform the statutory inquisitorial duty under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance by adopting an adversarial approach
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants' status as employees or independent contractors was properly determined

Ratio Decidendi

The presiding officer misdirected himself by adopting an adversarial approach and failing to perform the statutory inquisitorial duties required by the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (including actively testing evidence and explaining relevant statutory provisions); that procedural failing was material and justified setting aside the award and remitting the case for a de novo hearing by another presiding officer.

Court Disposition

Award of wages and costs against the Appellant set aside and matter remitted to the Labour Tribunal for rehearing de novo by another presiding officer.

Orders

  • Award of wages and costs against the Appellant set aside.
  • Case remitted to the Labour Tribunal for hearing de novo by another presiding officer.